FALLACY

I. The Straw man fallacy

+ The Straw man is a fallacy in which an
opponent's argument is overstated or misrepresented in
order to be more easily attacked or refuted. The technique
often takes quotes out of context or, more often,
incorrectly paraphrases or summarizes an opponent's
position. Then after "defeating" the position, the attacker
claims to have beaten the real thing.
+ Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/straw-man-fallacy-1692144
The Straw man fallacy

+ The name of the fallacy represents the idea that although a

straw man may look like a human, it won't put up any
resistance in a fight.
+ Source: https://www.thoughtco.com/straw-man-fallacy-1692144
Structure of Straw man fallacy

• One person presents an argument “A”.

• The opponent twists it and replaces it with argument “B”,
which is similar but incorrect or inaccurate.
• The opponent proceeds to debunk argument “B”.
• Since the opponent has covered both arguments, it seems
that argument “A” has been debunked as well.
Source: https://exploringyourmind.com/the-straw-man-fallacy/
 Example of Straw man fallacy
+ 1. Alcohol laws
+ Picture a debate about changing the legal drinking age:
• Person A: We should set the legal drinking age to 16. At that age, the
human body is ready to manage the effects of alcoholic beverages.
• Person B: That’s crazy. Indiscriminately giving alcohol to young people will
affect society.
+ As you can see, person B didn’t respond to person A’s argument. On
the contrary, person B took the argument to the extreme. That way, they
avoided discussing a rational plan or solution.
Source: https://exploringyourmind.com/the-straw-man-fallacy/
 Example of Straw man fallacy
+ 2. Human evolution
• Person A: Humans have several common ancestors with primates. A lot of
evidence supports this claim.
• Person B: If human beings came from monkeys, then why do chimpanzees
still exist?
+ In this case, person B doesn’t really understand evolution.
Therefore, instead of making a logical point, they used a fallacious
argument that didn’t respond to person A’s argument. In this case,
this fallacy can also be seen as an appeal to extremes.
+ Source: https://exploringyourmind.com/the-straw-man-fallacy/
II. Appeal to Pity Fallacy
+ The appeal to pity fallacy is the fallacy of supporting a position by
attempting to provoke pity or guilt in your audience or opponent.
+ It’s a type of appeal to emotion fallacy. Instead of supporting their
position with logic, the arguer supports it by attempting to play on
their audience’s emotions.
+ It’s also called the Galileo argument and argumentum ad
misericordiam.
+ Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-pity-fallacy/
+ https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-pity/#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20pity%20is%20a%20logical%20fallacy
%20%E2%80%93,called%20the%20Galileo%20argument%20and%20argumentum%20ad
%20misericordiam.
Example Appeal to Pity Fallacy
+ “Won’t you have some more food? I was in the kitchen all day
preparing this meal.”
+ The appeal to pity fallacy, like all appeal to emotion fallacies, is a
fallacy of relevance. Simply put, the attempt to elicit pity just
isn’t relevant to the arguer’s position. The arguer is claiming
that because they spent the whole day preparing the meal, the
listener should eat more food. But in reality, how long they
spent on the meal is irrelevant to whether the listener should or
shouldn’t eat more—being hungry is the only relevant reason to
eat more.
+ Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-pity-fallacy/
Example Appeal to Pity Fallacy
+ In an attempt to sway a jury’s ruling on their client’s
punishment, a lawyer might argue:
+ Lawyer: “My client might have robbed the bank, but his
family would be devastated if he went to jail.”
+ As you can likely gather, the appeal to pity fallacy is often
used in attempts to manipulate or guilt-trip others into
doing what the asker wants. Pathos, the persuasive strategy
of appealing to the listener’s emotion, is a key component of
the appeal to pity fallacy.
+ Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-pity-fallacy/
III. Appeal to Authority Fallacy
+ The appeal to authority fallacy, also known as argument
from authority, is a type of logical fallacy that refers to the
different ways of fallaciously using the statements or
opinions of authority figures in order to support a conclusion.
+ For instance, someone may assume that something must be
true if a so-called expert believes it to be true, and no other
evidence is needed.
Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20appeal%20to
%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as%20argument,authority%20figures%20in
%20order%20to%20support%20a%20conclusion.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
+ There are a number of ways this can occur. One way, which is likely
the most common type of this fallacy, works by relying upon the
testimonies of irrelevant or poor experts. This is known as
the appeal to false authority. A simple example would be:
• “Albert Einstein, one of the smartest people ever, said that the best
and healthiest breakfast is bacon and eggs, so it must be true.”
+ Einstein was undoubtedly smart, but he is not an authoritative source
on what is a healthy breakfast: his area of expertise was in a
completely different field.
Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20appeal%20to
%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as%20argument,authority%20figures%20in%20order%20to
%20support%20a%20conclusion.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy
+ Another faulty argument from authority would be when
someone asserts that climate change cannot be real because
one environmental scientist, who has been studying climate
change, says it is not real. This testimony from an authority,
in this case, doesn’t provide strong inductive support for the
conclusion since the scientific consensus (97% of climate
scientists) agrees that climate change is real, and is likely
caused by human activities.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20appeal
%20to%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as%20argument,authority
%20figures%20in%20order%20to%20support%20a%20conclusion.
Appeal to False Authority
+ This is likely the most common way of erroneously citing
(supposed) experts. It occurs when someone uses the words
of poor or irrelevant authorities as evidence for a claim. In
such a case, the authorities are unqualified or their expertise
is not relevant to the argument being made.
+ A typical example of this fallacy would be almost any
celebrity endorsement in advertising.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The
%20appeal%20to%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as
%20argument,authority%20figures%20in%20order%20to%20support%20a
%20conclusion.
AGAINST THE CONSENSUS
+ When an expert’s views are contradictory to the consensus
(or general agreement) within a field of study, their
testimony can only provide weak evidence.
+ As seen in the example earlier, if 97% of climate scientists
say that climate change is real, it is unreasonable to make
a conclusion based on the beliefs of the 3% who disagree.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The
%20appeal%20to%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as
%20argument,authority%20figures%20in%20order%20to%20support%20a
%20conclusion.
IPSE DIXIT
+ Ipse dixit, which is Latin for “he himself said it”, is a term
that refers to a situation where someone fallaciously uses
themselves as an authority in an attempt to prove that
something is true.
+ For example, a patient asserts that their doctor’s opinion
about their condition is wrong since “it is their body, so
they must know better than doctors”.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20appeal
%20to%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as%20argument,authority
%20figures%20in%20order%20to%20support%20a%20conclusion.
APPEAL TO UNNAMED AUTHORITIES
+ It’s fallacious to make a claim based on authorities’ opinions
that cannot be verified. This type of claim often appeals vaguely
to some unnamed experts.
+ For example, someone claims that “most dentists say
toothbrush X is the best kind of toothbrush for you, so it must
be true”. If this is the only proof they offer, and we are unable to
verify if it’s actually correct, we don’t have real reasons to
believe it’s truthfulness.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/#:~:text=The%20appeal
%20to%20authorityfallacy%2C%20also%20known%20as%20argument,authority
%20figures%20in%20order%20to%20support%20a%20conclusion.
IV. Either- or fallacy
+ The either-or fallacy refers to presenting two opposing options
in a situation, in such a way that they seem to be the only
available options.
+ For instance, if something is true, then the other must be false.
However, both can be false or true as well. This is the reason
why the either-or fallacy is also called false dilemma; a situation
need not necessarily have two outcomes, it can have more,
which weren’t thought of, or weren’t introduced on purpose.
+ Source: https://psychologenie.com/explanation-of-either-or-fallacy-with-examples
Examples of Either- or fallacy
+ The tagline of Mastercard says “There are some things money
can’t buy. For everything else, there’s MasterCard.” This
implies that everything that can be bought, can be done with a
Mastercard. However, things can also be bought with a VISA
card, or simply cash. This clearly hints the intentional use of
this fallacy in order to market a product.
+ Another example is of Gillette, its slogan says “The best a man
can get”. However, it’s not the only best thing a man can get,
considering grooming products, or anything for that matter.
+ Source: https://psychologenie.com/explanation-of-either-or-fallacy-with-examples
Types of Either-or Fallacy
+ Morton’s fork refers to choosing between two unpleasant options.
+ False choice, as its name suggests, refers to an intentional attempt
to rule out several logical options from a situation. The Mastercard
example is a good example to illustrate this concept.
+ Black-or-white thinking, refers to the lack of ability in a person
to bring together good and bad things of a situation or person. This
concept is termed as splitting, in psychology; such a person believes
things to be either completely good, or completely bad.
+ Source: https://psychologenie.com/explanation-of-either-or-fallacy-with-examples
V. Hasty Generalization Fallacy
+ Hasty generalization, also known as “faulty
generalization”, is a logical fallacy in which someone
generalizes from a too-small sample size. The conclusion
of the argument is made hastily without looking at more
reliable statistics which would enable the arguer to make a
more accurate judgment about the situation or issue.
+ Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-definition-and-examples/
Hasty Generalization Fallacy
+ The hasty generalization fallacy is as follows:
1. Small sample is taken from a large body of data.
2. A conclusion is drawn based on that small sample, then applied
to the entire body of data.
If someone asserts that all people from country X must be bad drivers
because the two people they’ve met from that country were awful at it,
they are guilty of hasty generalization.
+ Source: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/hasty-generalization-fallacy/
+ https://fallacyinlogic.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-definition-and-examples/
Example of Hasty Generalization Fallacy
• “I asked five people in the street what is their favorite color, and four
of them said blue. Therefore, 80% of the population prefer blue over
any other color.”
• “My dad has smoked 2 packs of cigarettes every day for 20 years, and
he doesn’t have any health problems. Smoking can’t be dangerous!”
• “Our exercise program helped several people to lose weight while
building more muscle. Therefore, this program will be effective for
everyone.”
• “Did you see that woman just run a red light? Women are awful
drivers.”
• Source: https://fallacyinlogic.com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-definition-and-examples/
VI. False Cause
+ False Cause is a type of fallacy that arises when one assigns as
the cause those facts that merely preceded or accompanied the
effect when in fact there is no good evidence of a logical
connection or casual relation. Hence, an arguer commits the
fallacy of false cause when he labels something as the cause of
everything else on the basis of insufficient or unrepresentative
evidence.
Example: I blame the television for the epidemic of hijacking,
kidnappings, and other acts of terrorism, If we could stop
televising terrorist acts, they would stop.
+ Any time we presume without justification that x caused y,
we commit the fallacy of false cause.
+ The most common variety of the “false cause” is the Post
hoc ergo propter hoc variety.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
The Latin term post hoc ergo propter hoc translates as “after this, therefore because of
this,”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (referred to here as “post hoc“) refers to an error in logic, in
which it is assumed that:
• X happened before Y
• Y happened, and was caused by something
• Therefore, X caused Y
Example: The cock crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the cock causes the sun to rise.
https://youtu.be/vRJUvFG8gbE - Example from Big Bang Theory
VII. Ad Hominem (Against the Man)
+ Ad hominem is a category of argument strategies that involve
criticizing an opponent’s character, motive, background, or another
personal attribute instead of their argument’s content.
• “You have no idea what you’re talking about; you’ve only lived
here for six months.”
• “It’s hard to take your claims seriously because you spend your
days playing video games.”
Ad Hominem examples
• “Although Dr. Baron advocates for reducing our carbon footprints,
she lives in a large house and drives an SUV.”
• “Steve thinks Earth is flat, so who knows what other crazy stuff he
believes?”
+ Person 1: Stop leaving your trash all over the sidewalk.
Person 2: Your lawn is overgrown; you’re the last person who
should care about garbage on the sidewalk.
VIII. Ad Populum (Appeal to the
Public)
+ Ad populum is a Latin phrase that means ‘to appeal to the
public’. The fallacy consists in maintaining that something
has the nature of truth when it’s accepted by public opinion,
instead of for logical reasons. The argument for this type of
fallacy is often emotionally charged. People’s emotions are
used to divert attention from the logical evidence relevant to the
conclusion. The appeal becomes trivial rather than deductive..
+ The ad populum fallacy has the following logical scheme:
- X, (the majority) asserts that A is true.
- Therefore, A is true.
+ There are two types of frequent ad populum arguments: the
appeal to tradition and the appeal to common practice.
+ The first holds that something is true because tradition validates it.
For example: “It’s always been done this way, therefore this is the
way it should be done”.
+ The second appeal asserts that something is okay because
everyone else does it that way.
• You have to do it that way because everybody does it that way”.
• “This law is no good because no other country in the world has anything like it”.
• “The majority of voters are in favor of this law, so it’s a good law”.
• “It must be a really good car because so many people have bought one”.
• “Brand X is the leader in Europe, therefore their products should be bought”.
• “Most people believe in life after death, therefore it must exist”.
• “If the majority says that COVID-19 is a government strategy, then it must be so”.
Extra Materials

+ CRITICAL THINKING - Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy -

https://youtu.be/hfil34ayaEU